A victorious antibiotic infusion against the ku klux klamydia

Donald Trump won the presidency because tolerant, hard working, middle American white people got tired of having their American Dream deliberately destroyed for the enrichment of corrupt self righteous urban coastal elites – elites who at the same time were constantly accusing them of bigotry. The most tolerant, live and let live race of people on the planet finally got sick of being branded as the officially hated group, simultaneously exploited and despised by the hipster hegemony pretending to be two different political parties.

Trump won by explicitly rejecting the demonization of Middle American whites as illiberal, un-American bigots: the worst thing they could possibly be. He won by affirming that middle American whites actually really are good liberals despite what all of the lesbians and pedophiles and transwhatever freaks say: that the persecutors of middle American whites among the elite of both parties are wrong to demonize them as the subhuman Low Man. That he ‘lost the popular vote’ is irrelevant for all sorts of reasons, first of which is that of course all of the urban hipster SJW self-hating white liberals are against him, as expected. One might as well counterfactually assert that if the game he actually did win had been checkers instead of chess, he would have lost.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

§ 52 Responses to A victorious antibiotic infusion against the ku klux klamydia

Yes indeed. Trump and other right liberal populists like Farage embody unprincipled exceptions and are the manifestations of liberalism correcting itself for excesses of the past two decades of neo-liberalism (neo-liberalism was essentially liberalism unrestrained by the extigencies of the Cold War).

The only benefit I see is that the liberal elites are going to be infighting and disunited more than usual.

donnie:
The perception is that continued importation of massive numbers of non-liberals was going to end up destroying freedom and equality. I think the perception is credible, especially to folks who have lots of new neighbors from certain tribal nationalities/races moving into their neighborhoods next to the closed factories.

But you are right that as far as motivation for action goes the perception is what matters.

I don’t think Trump is a milquetoast right liberal in the mold of Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, or Nigel Farrage. Instead, I think he’s a pragmatist who would be more than happy to smash our liberal institutions while traditional, real right-wingers are given cover to work on their replacements.

To be really optimistic, if a few other events fall into place, the former Christendom could soon start hitting levels of counter-revolution that shouldn’t even be possible.

The perception is that continued importation of massive numbers of non-liberals was going to end up destroying freedom and equality. I think the perception is credible, especially to folks who have lots of new neighbors from certain tribal nationalities/races moving into their neighborhoods next to the closed factories.

I think the truth is that importation of massive numbers of non-liberals ends up increasing freedom and equality. It makes the non-liberals liberal within a generation or two, and it makes the liberals already present more liberal.

The only things it actually destroys are any preexisting cultural norms. Those become censored from the public square out of respect for other traditions, and within a couple of generations are forgotten entirely.

What I see in Trump supporters (and their European equivalents across the pond) are a group of liberals who are all but entirely stripped of their culture and their heritage rising up and saying, no, you can’t strip us of everything. They are people clinging to the vestiges of their respective shattered traditions.

In as much as this is actually what is happening, I’m inclined to support them in their efforts.

I grew up as a kid in the midwest. West of Illinois midwest, well away from the Chicago cesspool. Moved east when I was 15.

Middle America is a long way from perfect, but at least in my experience the social intolerance and elitism factor goes up exponentially as you approach large bodies of water.

Why that is the case is of course subject to interpretation, and my own perceptions are probably skewed by selective memory decades removed from childhood. But yeah — the coastal elites who despise middle America definitely live in a bubble.

I think the truth is that importation of massive numbers of non-liberals ends up increasing freedom and equality.

There are probably limits to the rate of assimilation though, and Current Year politics is definitely testing those limits. Ask the folks who live in and around Dearborn. For that matter, ask the victims of mass rape by vibrant refugees in Europe.

“This past election day represented a victory for tolerant live-and-let-live liberalism and for white supremacy, which are the same thing.”

I think that is partially true and while I would really like to just take comfort in your words, there is still the worst of the alt-right who are busy sowing seeds of chaos and do not share your same definition of “white supremacy.”

Zippy has pointed out many times that the racist form of white supremacy that we often think of when we hear the term is actually just another aspect of liberalism: the eternal struggle of the oppressed to liberate themselves from the Low Man subhumans that are holding them back from authentic freedom and equality. White supremacy is just another side of the same ugly coin, along with feminism, Marxism, MRAs, etc.

But I would also caution people like yourself, Step2, and others not to confuse temporary media coverage of racist white supremacists with anything like a movement.

Yes well, Vox Day and his ilk are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They are nothing more than opportunists who derive their sense of power from sowing seeds of chaos and engaging in fear mongering. Dominion as destruction. I call them teh stoopid.

Trump won by explicitly rejecting the demonization of Middle American whites as illiberal, un-American bigots: the worst thing they could possibly be. He won by affirming that middle American whites actually really are good liberals despite what all of the lesbians and pedophiles and transwhatever freaks say

I think it is actually a clash of two types of tolerance: Anglo-Saxon and liberal. Anglo-Saxon culture has always been more tolerant of differences and eccentricity than most of the West. On a personal level, most Trump supporters probably don’t like homosexuality. However, the tolerance from their cultural tradition leads them to say “well, I don’t have to approve of it, and these gays aren’t forcing the community to act, so let God handle it.”

To them, that is perfectly tolerant. It is quite literally tolerant. What the hipsters demand is acceptance. Tolerance just means you “put up with it.”

Middle Americans and working class Americans have tolerated the intolerable from the hipsters’ protected classes while being told that their tolerance was not tolerance because tolerance isn’t acceptance. Even though acceptance is not tolerance.

In as much as this is actually what is happening, I’m inclined to support them in their efforts.

As am I. Discovering what has been lost is a key part of the discovery that leads to questioning liberalism.

Given the choices, I was pleased Trump won. Just as given the choice between colon cancer and brain cancer, stage for stage, Id be pleased to come up with colon cancer. Trump smoked out a whole bunch of people’s true thoughts, and from a self-protection wise-as-serpents standpoint that was helpful. To the extent he curbs mass immigration or whatever, I genuinely thank him. But really my experience is that he just expands the mind trap on the right. Never mind that continued, complete rejection of Roman Catholicism. What’s most important is that white people are happy, prosperous, and safe and that we can elect Republicans in perpetuity before we die and go to hell.

One thing to bear in mind is that as we import more people from left-leaning countries, we import more people who will provide a constituency to the forces of cultural degradation. Christians often seem to have a hard time understanding that by prioritizing the immediate “bathroom politics” issues over immigration, they are likely to end up facing a far stronger hard left constituency hell-bent on forcing those same “bathroom politics” on them.

I don’t think the end of liberalism is going to be a fun thing to experience, so seeing the can kicked a little farther isn’t an unwelcome sight. It is a rare delight to hear the lamentation of the leftists. My Facebook status that night said HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

I hear you. I do. I’m personally not as convinced that who we are “importing” are really as left leaning as you think. I wonder if they are simply gorging themselves in the way a college freshman does at his first kegger. One’s first keg stand is exhilarating not only because of the alcohol but also because of the applause. Anyway, even framing the current political debate on the right as an argument between the micro bathroom politics and the macro “saving America by opposing immigration” is wrongheaded in my opinion. Opposing widespread immigration in the current context seems to be saying if we don’t oppose immigration we will wind up with a disgusting cesspool of a society with a few more bullets and a bit less cash than the current disgusting cesspool of a society we have.

With all of the serious problems within the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, this election has been a welcome relief and a riotously funny diversion and now that Trump has won, his ideological supporters are already telling his voters that his promise to build the wall was just Boob bait for Bubbas and, of course, avers the smart set, he never intended to build one.

If he does not build the wall, the ranks of the non-voters will greatly increase.

Mick:
If Trump really is Bill Clinton redux (as opposed to just marketing himself that way) we should expect a triangulation to the left which mirrors Slick Willy’s triangulation to the right after being elected. Consolidating power is the name of the game now, assuming he wants a second term.

It will be interesting if he turns out to be a Golem, an agent of chaos and destruction pointed at the status quo. I can’t read his mind but I find it doubtful; and cabinet rumors about (e.g.) Treasury Secretary and the like tend to support the Bill Redux theory over the Golem theory.

There are probably limits to the rate of assimilation though, and Current Year politics is definitely testing those limits. Ask the folks who live in and around Dearborn. For that matter, ask the victims of mass rape by vibrant refugees in Europe.

There was basically zero danger of America (Europe may or may not be a different story) importing enough Muslims to threaten liberalism anytime in the near future. And Hispanics are already corrupted to a large extent (albeit definitely less than us) by liberalism, so they’ll assimilate in the ways that matter to liberal elites within a generation or two.

My guess, based on your comment, is that your predictive model lacks consideration of any number of critical factors. As just one example, liberalism requires a well oiled boots-on-the-ground economic engine to fuel the projection of its ever more comprehensive reality distortion field. Right now that economic engine is predominantly white men of all socioeconomic classes. Demoralize the engine to the point where it stops working, or even just stops being efficient, and you get Mexico City. Or Detroit.

Liberalism is ultimately parasitic, and is more than capable of killing the host if it does not self regulate. The self regulation function is performed by right liberals.

Liberalism is ultimately parasitic, and is more than capable of killing the host if it does not self regulate. The self regulation function is performed by right liberals.

Liberalism is an effective way to destroy a society, but it is certainly not the only way to destroy one. A lot of people who seem critical of liberalism seem to focused entirely on the threat from liberalism as cultural destroyer, rather than on the myriad opportunistic infections and threats that are arising on its periphery. That is why, though not a formal white nationalist, I at least concede the necessity of white identity and the acceptance that there is a real nation rather than a group of Free and Equal Individuals United By A Proposition But Otherwise Not A Real People With Shared Blood, Soil, Culture and History.

It benefits your actual nation nothing (except perhaps in the afterlife) to repent of liberalism and find that you ignored growing internal threats willing to unleash ethnic cleansing on you. Sort of like Rome becoming Christian only to be overrun and destroyed by the barbarians because the Christianizing society never saw the importance of also having a baby boom that could replenish the native population and restore the legions to primarily Greek and Latin soldiers.

The thing that drove David Stove to despair was that where there is only one way to be right, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

But that of course is no excuse to cling to the basic error I call liberalism, once it has been correctly apprehended as probably – in concrete terms – one of the most murderous and vile ways to be wrong in all of human history.

Well when you butcher it like that, then sure. However, in context it says something else entirely which is that “perhaps your path might lead to more people being saved,” but then perhaps your path out of liberalism is itself littered with serious theological and metaphysical error that just results in a weakened nation getting beaten down and destroyed, then sent to burn in Hell.

But hey, you repented of liberalism!

That is why “repentance of liberalism” has to happen in a larger framework to protect the nation both in this life and the next.

That is a very uncharitable interpretation of Zippy. But props to the extent that that is exactly the argument thrown at me whenever I argue against liberalism. Mike T, is it not at least interesting that you – in this context – are keeping company with every HRC luvin SJW you despise??

We lament when young men in this country embrace radical Islam as a rejection of our values. The reality is that on some level they are repenting of liberalism. They’re just repenting of it right into Hell. Repenting of liberalism only means anything in the context of society embracing Christianity. That is why it must be positioned as part of a revival of Christianity.

“The reality is that on some level they are repenting of liberalism. They’re just repenting of it right into Hell. Repenting of liberalism only means anything in the context of society embracing Christianity.”

Despite the red herring, sure. I suppose it may be interesting to sort out the motivations of moving from circle 5 to 3 of hell. But for the throne and altar folks who would rather wind up in heaven, the relatively easy answer is to repent of liberalism and heresy.

Again with technocratic words like ‘positioned’, as if to say ‘rejecting 2+2=5 must be positioned in a metaphysical framework of intuitionist philosophy of mathematics’. It is just an excuse not to reject error until you feel like it, along with the conceit that the civilizational consequences of our actions in embracing truth or falsity, good or evil, can be technocratically planned.

Now it is certainly true that everyone should reject Islam, protestantism, and other errors and embrace traditional Catholic apostolic sacramental Christianity. But it would be ridiculous for me to claim that you can’t or shouldn’t reject 2+2=5 or Nazism or liberalism until you are ready to enter the Church. You should do both, now, independently. Failing to do one doesn’t excuse failing to do the other.

I like the description of those criminals by Matt Taibbi, in his expose, “Griftopia”, in which he revealed them as the crooked cheats they are -Taibbi is much harsher, and far funnier, in his description of Goldman Sachs than I am.

As an aside, quite a few years ago I moved from Maine to Florida and I got a job as a clerk at JP Morgan on Palm Beach Island when that company first started to speculate using the investments funds of the old money people.

Morgan actually hired a blonde weirdo from Texas who showed-up at a meeting with all invited (me included) during which she made it clear there was a new day in investment banking because she was hired instead of, Peter, an old white man.

Amasing and cruel public emasculation and she showed her true colors a month or so later when she showed-up for work wearing a red “I ain’t scairt” t-shirt when Morgan was pumping and dumping their initial stock offerings etc and propagandising old money men the advantage of “leveraging” their money in these credit default swaps etc.

(I had to set-up for these sales pitches and I lingered around to catch the pitch)

I know less than zero about these things and so I asked a brilliant analyst from India about how much money Morgan was leveraging versus identifiable assets and he just laughed.

Even the little I saw on the inside made me realise the American worker is screwed…

Mike T: If I understand you correctly in this an and other threads I am quite sympathetic to much of the substance of your positions. However I think you tend to overstate them to the point that others not unreasonably see them as evidence of disordered priorities indicative of lingering liberalism. Alternatively, I could be misreading you and/or Zippy and co. This is just my impression as some guy on the internet reading comment threads.

Demoralize the engine to the point where it stops working, or even just stops being efficient, and you get Mexico City. Or Detroit.

Detroit and Mexico City are both still liberal and not going anywhere. Sure, they’re systematically dysfunctional, but they’re not about to die out.

Liberalism is ultimately parasitic, and is more than capable of killing the host if it does not self regulate. The self regulation function is performed by right liberals.

Right liberalism as self regulation is a valid paradigm, but it’s not absolute. The left has some internal control mechanisms (e.g. Both mass immigration and euthanasia are ways to hedge off the social problems caused by mass contraception and abortion).

Sure, they’re systematically dysfunctional, but they’re not about to die out.

While the external economic engines upon which they are totally dependent continue to function, and everyone continues to pretend not to notice that dependency, they will remain at least nominally liberal, if the label is the important thing. It is getting harder to tell Detroit from Mogadishu every day though.

At issue is how sustainable substantive liberal control of political power is in the US as something carried economically on the backs of the labor of predominantly white men, as city after city acquires its -stan suffix.

But when it comes to counterfactuals folks are gonna believe what they are gonna believe. And as donnie said in one of these threads, what folks believe – in particular the folks who actually do the work that makes the engine run – ultimately limits political choices. What matters is that enough (right) liberals are starting to believe that immigrants are screwing up live-and-let-live liberal tolerance.

Whether they are wrong or not vs your predictive model or mine doesn’t much matter, because you (and I) aren’t going to be consulted.

I wouldn’t use the prefix “nominal” to describe the liberalism of either Detroit or Mexico City. They both seem pretty well inculcated with it.

And I’m not sure on what you’re basing your claim that Mexico City is dependent on an external economy for its survival. It’s probably one of the whitest parts of Mexico, and its inhabitants enjoy more modern luxuries than rural Mexicans. As for Muslims, Detroit may be overrun with them, but most of America isn’t.

Something else you’re ignoring is the fact that, from the everyman’s perspective, the economic infrastructure that provides all the consciences of modern society already has been exported abroad, for the most part to East Asia. While white elites are still necessary to maintain the economic status quo, it’s been backed up by Chinese workers for some time.

You’re no doubt right that many on the right have explicitly liberal motivations for opposing mass immigration, but is a bad motivation on the part of one person a good reason for another not to support an objectively good cause?

… is a bad motivation on the part of one person a good reason for another not to support an objectively good cause?

No, but who has suggested otherwise?

My point is not about modern luxuries.

Liberalism – as an insane, anti-real political philosophy – requires a constant expenditure of economic energy to keep reality at bay. So far, in America, this has been supplied by natural resources: specifically by the endless frontier.

The phenomenon of white flight, of physical separation between the ideological cannon fodder classes and the liberal ruling class, represents the harvesting of this economic energy. White suburbia fuels the ‘hood. Functional liberal ruling and working classes require a frontier into which they can escape from the consequences of liberalism’s triumphs.

What cities like Baltimore and Detroit show is that even in America this is breaking down: instead of the head fake of ‘peak oil’ we have started to reach the real hard limit of ‘peak suburbia’.

Whether or not there is an alternate economic energy resource available in the US to fuel liberalism’s suspension of reality is open to speculation.

But the resource which has actually fueled it up to this point is in fact threatened by mass immigration.

[…] liberal ruling class, represents the harvest of this economic energy. Functional liberal ruling and productive working classes require a frontier into which they can escape from the consequences of liberalism’s […]